Are the UN Charters' rules on the use of force by peacekeeping forces appropriate?

Question

I have to use the add details feature to get this question in fully, so please wait a few moments before answering..

When can UN peacekeepers use force?

Under-resourced, under-sized peacekeeping operations with inadequate rules of engagement proved to be ill-suited for contemporary post-conflict situations, in which armed factions often remained active in the period following civil wars. In addition to targeting and abusing civilians, these groups have also attacked UN peacekeepers. Aware of the dangers of deploying peacekeepers in situations where there is no real peace to keep, the Security Council now provides, when it deems necessary, UN peacekeeping operations with more “robust” mandates based on Chapter VII (5) — the “enforcement” chapter of the United Nations Charter. These mandates allow and in fact require peacekeepers to “use all necessary means” to protect civilians, prevent violence against UN staff and personnel and deter armed elements from ignoring peace

agreements. Currently, UN missions in the DRC, Liberia, Kosovo, Burundi, Haiti and Côte d'Ivoire operate under Chapter VII mandates.

In 2005, several UN peacekeeping operations, in particular MONUC in the DRC and MINUSTAH in Haiti, clearly showed how a timely robust approach to implementing their mandates could effectively help protect civilians and improve the security situation on the ground. The UN-led military operations in eastern DRC and in certain districts of Porte-au-Prince marked a significant change in the UN's approach to countering violence and protecting civilians.

The Secretary-General has repeatedly stressed, however, that this new approach should not be interpreted as a means of turning the UN into a war-fighting machine, and that the use of force should always be seen as last resort.

(5) Chapter VII of the UN Charter is entitled “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of Peace, and Acts of Aggression. Chapter VI deals with the “Pacific Settlements of Dispute”. Chapter VII outlines when the Security Council may authorize armed forces to “give effect to its decisions” in threats to peace, breaches of a peace or acts of aggression.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter6.htm

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm

Those link to the aforementioned chapters.

Sorry, here's the source for the copied text.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q12.htm

Answer 1

The UN so-called paecekeepers should use force to protect civilians' lives.
I say so-called peacekeepers because you cannot keep peace if there wasn't piece in the first place.
But yes, I believe it's their duty to protect civilians with force if necessary.

Answer 2

Seems to me that without the US the UN doesn't have much of an army...or at least one that's smart enough to avoid playing catch with the Israeli artillery.